AYM Shatters Court Rule: One Judge Can No Longer Bind Another

The Turkish Constitutional Court (AYM) has struck down a decades-old rule in civil law that allowed one court to impose its decision on another, calling it a violation of the “constitutional judge guarantee”. The landmark ruling, published in the Official Gazette, is expected to reshape how civil cases are merged and heard in Türkiye.

The Rule That Fell

The annulled clause was hidden in Article 166 of the Code of Civil Procedure (HMK). Until now, when two related lawsuits were filed in the same judicial district — for instance, two different civil courts in Istanbul — the second court could order the files to be combined in the first court.

The problem? The wording “…and this decision binds the other court” meant the first court had no right to object or refuse. This effectively let the second court decide which judge would handle the case.

AYM: Constitutional Violation

The case was triggered by objections from local courts in Nevşehir and Istanbul. After review, the AYM ruled the practice unconstitutional, citing Article 37 of the Turkish Constitution, which guarantees the principle of the “natural judge.”

Key points from the ruling:

• Predetermined Judge Principle: Citizens must know, before a dispute arises, which court will handle their case. Judges cannot be reassigned after the fact.

• Irreversible Change: The annulled rule allowed one court to permanently change the judge without appeal.

• No Oversight: Arbitrary “merger decisions” had no mechanism for review. Objections could only be raised at the very end of a trial, and even then, not as grounds for reversal.

AYM concluded that the rule allowed post-hoc judge shopping and undermined judicial independence.

Dissenting Voices

The decision was not unanimous. Three justices, including Deputy Presidents Hasan Tahsin Gökcan and Basri Bağcı, and Member İrfan Fidan, filed dissenting opinions.

Their argument:

• The rule ensured procedural efficiency, saving time and cost.

• The change was not a true “judge replacement,” but rather a technical transfer between divisions of the same level court.

• The Constitution speaks of the “legally assigned court,” not the specific judge, they argued.

Impact on Future Cases

With this annulment, no court can unilaterally bind another with a merger decision. Each court will now retain greater control over its own docket, strengthening judicial independence but potentially lengthening proceedings.

Legal experts warn the change may lead to more parallel trials, but also reduces the risk of arbitrary power shifts between judges.

The ruling has already been described as one of the most consequential judicial checks on court procedure in recent years, reinforcing constitutional safeguards at a time when the independence of the judiciary is a hotly debated issue in Türkiye.